Opinion of the Treaty of Versailles?

[Sumner 1868]

One of the worst treaties ever signed.

[Oakvale]

Gets a far worse rap than deserved, actually.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Revengeful tripe from the limeys and the frogs on the warthog that ate their truffle.  The limeys pulled back while the frogs insisted and invaded like a plague.  Then Hitler...we know how England and France like to shirk any responsibility for that...so...  Ever since, a split up eunuch warthog has outperformed the frog and the limey.  But is now rooting the truffles out further afield and the frog hardly ribbets and the limey withdraws.  The cycle of Europe.

[H. Ross Peron]

One of the worst treaties ever signed.

[Zioneer]

Too cruel for the pride and economy of Germany, not cruel enough to keep them from doing something about it.

[angus]

Gets a far worse rap than deserved, actually.

Possibly, but having the Big Four treat the Japanese who attended like they were less than human had a lasting effect.  Five allied nations sent delegates, but only the Big Four were recognized.  Pearl Harbor may still have been a target because we had business interests in raped Nanjing, but treating the Japs like subhumans cannot possibly have been justified.  And we don't even get into the humiliation of the German people by the British and French, because I'm sure anyone over the age of six understands that this set the stage for the NSDAP and its (highly successful) program of job growth and remilitarization and increased nationalism which led to an even bigger war.

FWIW, I voted Horrible Treaty, and I think that the US congress is just as much to blame for its long-term effects as the other various parliaments involved, but then I'm old enough to remember the Cold War--the inevitable indirect geopolitical result of the treaty of Versailles--as an everyday reality. 

[bedstuy]

Gets a far worse rap than deserved, actually.

Possibly, but having the Big Four treat the Japanese who attended like they were less than human had a lasting effect.  Five allied nations sent delegates, but only the Big Four were recognized.  Pearl Harbor may still have been a target because we had business interests in raped Nanjing, but treating the Japs like subhumans cannot possibly have been justified.  And we don't even get into the humiliation of the German people by the British and French, because I'm sure anyone over the age of six understands that this set the stage for the NSDAP and its (highly successful) program of job growth and remilitarization and increased nationalism which led to an even bigger war.

FWIW, I voted Horrible Treaty, and I think that the US congress is just as much to blame for its long-term effects as the other various parliaments involved, but then I'm old enough to remember the Cold War--the inevitable indirect geopolitical result of the treaty of Versailles--as an everyday reality. 

The idea that the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles led to WWII is a myth.  And, so is the idea of highly successful Nazi economic policy. 

The German economic conditions that led to the rise of the Nazi Party were caused by the Great Depression and misguided monetary policy, way more than reparations, which had been softened in 1924 and eliminated in 1932, before the Nazis took power.  The Nazis would have attacked whatever the treaty ended WWI because their main beef was not with the fairness of the treaty, but the humiliation of defeat itself.

As for "highly successful" economic policy from the Nazis, also false.  A large part of that unemployment recovery was the global recovery from the depths of the Great Depression.    Unemployment did go down due to a large arms build up and public works, but it also was completely reckless spending.  The Nazis completely depleted the German foreign exchange reserves, defaulted on loans and looted private citizens.  They actually needed to start WWII so they could loot other countries before their economy totally collapsed.  And, then WWII laid waste to Germany and killed millions of their people.  So, highly unsuccessful.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fun fact: Germany's economic arms-industry driven economic recovery under the Nazis was literally the result of an admittedly very clever scam.

[Lief 🗽]

Freedom Treaty of course. I find it very disturbing that so many people in this thread are parroting literal Nazi propaganda.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sometimes two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true, you know. It is undeniably true that Versailles was punitive, vindictive and generally rather harsh. It is also undeniably true that such treaties were the norm at the time and that, on the matter of territory at least,* The Treaty of Versailles was notable for its moderation (we can, for instance, be absolutely sure that if the Central Powers had won the war the territorial demands of Germany et al would have been considerably more excessive). The Reparations are a different matter, and that is where the historical controversy lies. There have been attempts to defend the policy in recent decades, but I personally disagree; it was stupid and short-sighted even if the motivation behind it was perhaps understandable and even if it is absurd to argue Reparations ---> Hitler as though nothing else happened between 1919 and 1933.

_{*Germany lost Elsaß-Lothringen (which was a smaller territory than you'd think from the name; although it included all Alsace but Belfort, it only included about a quarter of Lorraine: the present day department of the Moselle) which was valuable but had only been annexed in 1871 anyway, Posen (a large and not terribly important agricultural province that was majority Polish), the Polish-speaking parts of Upper Silesia (economically valuable, but Germany was hardly short of heavy industry), northern Schleswig (Danish farmers ffs), Eupen-Malmedy (literally a couple of hick parishes), Memelland (ibid), and some additional small scraps of land on the new Polish border (notably the 'Polish Corridor') which at the time (the port of Gdynia not having been built) had no value other than - from a Polish perspective - strategic. To argue that this was onerous by the standards of the time is difficult. It is, in fact, hard to make a case against most of those territorial changes. More questionable would be the hiving off of the Saarland and Danzig as quasi-independent statelets (so that the French could exploit the Saar's collieries - reparations again - and that the Poles would have access to a proper port), though (again) these were rather small territories. There's also the matter of the loss of practical sovereignty over Rhineland which is hard to defend, sure. Oh, and Germany also lost its (actually pretty worthless) colonies, though I'd be very surprised if anyone here were to kick up a fuss about that...}

[Sumner 1868]

Sometimes two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true, you know. It is undeniably true that Versailles was punitive, vindictive and generally rather harsh. It is also undeniably true that such treaties were the norm at the time and that, on the matter of territory at least,* The Treaty of Versailles was notable for its moderation (we can, for instance, be absolutely sure that if the Central Powers had won the war the territorial demands of Germany et al would have been considerably more excessive). The Reparations are a different matter, and that is where the historical controversy lies. There have been attempts to defend the policy in recent decades, but I personally disagree; it was stupid and short-sighted even if the motivation behind it was perhaps understandable and even if it is absurd to argue Reparations ---> Hitler as though nothing else happened between 1919 and 1933.

_{*Germany lost Elsaß-Lothringen (which was a smaller territory than you'd think from the name; although it included all Alsace but Belfort, it only included about a quarter of Lorraine: the present day department of the Moselle) which was valuable but had only been annexed in 1871 anyway, Posen (a large and not terribly important agricultural province that was majority Polish), the Polish-speaking parts of Upper Silesia (economically valuable, but Germany was hardly short of heavy industry), northern Schleswig (Danish farmers ffs), Eupen-Malmedy (literally a couple of hick parishes), Memelland (ibid), and some additional small scraps of land on the new Polish border (notably the 'Polish Corridor') which at the time (the port of Gdynia not having been built) had no value other than - from a Polish perspective - strategic. To argue that this was onerous by the standards of the time is difficult. It is, in fact, hard to make a case against most of those territorial changes. More questionable would be the hiving off of the Saarland and Danzig as quasi-independent statelets (so that the French could exploit the Saar's collieries - reparations again - and that the Poles would have access to a proper port), though (again) these were rather small territories. There's also the matter of the loss of practical sovereignty over Rhineland which is hard to defend, sure. Oh, and Germany also lost its (actually pretty worthless) colonies, though I'd be very surprised if anyone here were to kick up a fuss about that...}

I agree the treaty wasn't solely responsible, but it was certainly the first spark. What was the fact that similar treaties had occurred elsewhere to matter to those who were suffering from poverty or hyperinflation?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mostly agree with Al.

[angus]

Fun fact: ...  very clever scam.

It is fun.  I read about that years ago, but I never really thought of it as a scam.  Maybe that's because here in the US we don't call that sort of thing a "scam."  We call it a "waiver."  Then again, it is fairly common for policy committees to recommend policies even with everyone in committee knowing that people will regularly be asking for a "waiver" in order to circumvent the policy.  The idea is to appease policymakers, who must be elected by the great unwashed masses, while simultaneously trying to maintain a logical operating position.  Do Germans also regularly operate like that?  I always thought they were given more to marrying spirit and letter in law.  Well, anyway, this is only a scam if you want to call it that.  Schacht's idea was neither unethical nor unworkable.  Since scam means to cheat or swindle by fraud, and since everyone who actually had money on the line knew of the details of the business arrangement, I don't really think this qualifies as a scam in the true sense.  

[Cory]

One of the worst treaties ever signed.

That's not what Germans said when they applied the same standard to Russia in 1917.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm opposed to the Treaty of Versailles on the grounds that it was punitive and inflicted economic misery on the German people. This is pretty indisputable. As far as I'm concerned, arguments about the causal link between the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler are irrelevant: it's a fact that the Treaty of Versailles damaged the European economy and caused unnecessary pain and suffering on the party of working class Europeans. I'm opposed to economic reparations or sanctions being used instruments of retributive justice. There are very few cases in which economic penalties or sanctions successfully disincentivized the resumption of conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace

On another note, I'm proud to be an American whenever I remember the Marshall Plan. After World War II, we had every reason to plow over Berlin and Tokyo and sow the soil with salt. Instead, we helped create a fair, egalitarian and stable framework for future generations. Germany and Japan are imperfect but they're also testaments to the success of a more humane economic/foreign policy framework. It's a shame that we forgot about this remarkable success within the span of a mere generation...

I disagree with bedstuy's claim that the success of Nazi German economic policy is "a myth". Nazi economic policy was certainly successful in comparison the economic strategy employed during Chancellor Bruning's tenure. Nazi economic policy was certainly successful in comparison to other European nations. Does this mean that Nazi policies delivered the benefits of this growth to the German public? No, of course not! In this regard, they were as evil as you'd expect them to be. That doesn't change the fact that Nazi Germany provides us with an inadvertently strong argument in favor of counter-cyclical spending. I don't see why that shouldn't be a takeaway from the 1930s: the bad guys were more innovative than the lackadaisical good guys. This is why macroeconomics matters.



(PIB is GDP in French)

[bedstuy]

Nazi Germany was a classic ponzi scheme, like Bernie Madoff or Enron.  And, running a ponzi scheme is probably the best short term strategy for economic success. 

It's also a horrible long-term strategy and inevitably fails. 

[RINO Tom]

Obviously a flawed treaty, and given my German heritage, I likely would have hated it even more at the time.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Horrible nazi enabling treaty

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it was more how the treaty was implemented than anything else. It allowed the silly 'stab in the back' narrative to develop. Also, in retrospect it would have been wiser to take options to stamp out the roving right-wing militias like the Freikorp.

[The Mikado]

Honestly, the problem I have with Versailles isn't with any of the punitive clauses. (The land to Belgium is questionable, but given how much Belgium suffered that minor revision can be accepted). I don't particularly like the banning of a merger between Austria and Germany clause, either, but I understand it. Even the reparations are justifiable and reasonable. The war guilt clause was a stupid and purely ceremonial slap in the face to Germany on totally unreasonable grounds, and as a totally egregious insult to Germany that had little basis in reality.

If you want unjustified Carthaginian Peace treaties after World War I, you're not looking for Versailles. Try St. Germain, Trianon(!), and Sevres, the last of which was so egregious that the Turks actually resumed hostilities and mostly overturned its worst elements at Lausanne in 1923.

Margaret MacMillan's amazing Paris 1919 is a must-read, seriously one of the best history books I've ever read.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sèvres went too far (especially in the west wrt Greece), but the Armenians did  deserve at least a part of the lands that were given to them, considering how much they suffered.